SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 12/18/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2352  Monday, 18 December 2000

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Dec 2000 08:52:54 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Dec 2000 10:19:23 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

[3]     From:   Ed Kranz <edkranz@optonline.net>
        Date:   Friday, 15 Dec 2000 20:14:26 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Friday, 15 Dec 2000 08:52:54 -0800
Subject: 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

Hi, Eric.

I'm pretty sure that Mike didn't mean to imply that you have to go to
graduate school to develop a valid opinion.  I think that what he is
saying, though, is that all communities maintain certain norms for
discourse that allow communication to take place.

Dag Hammerskold complained once, to Martin Buber, that nobody in the
General Assembly ever talked to each other.  Instead, they talked past
each other "out the window," in Hammerskold's phrase.  Not all talk, in
other words, is actually an effort to communicate.

The risk "of losing the opportunity for free exchange", actually comes
from two directions.  We can become so censorious that not everything
can be spoken, or we can become so outspoken that nobody is really
talking to anyone else.  Most scholarly and professional communities, of
any type, make the rules of their discourse overt, in order to avoid
this second danger.  An example would be the rules of order of a
courtroom.  Another would be the various (minor) rules under which we
operate on this list.  But as a further extension, there are usually
unspoken rules of discourse that also are necessary if any sort of
communication is to take place.

I don't think Mike is aiming for an extension of the rules of the list
to abolish postings by non-scholars, just like we abolish postings from
conspiracy theorists.  What he is, I think, suggesting is that the
scholars on this list present actual arguments along with their
opinions, as you have just done.  Then we can disagree, but at least
continue to have a discussion which doesn't decline into name-calling,
self-righteousness and offhand insults.  We can have a discussion, in
other words, that survives our differences.  Merely airing our opinions,
in every more intolerant terms, doesn't produce that.

Cheers,
Seán

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com>
Date:           Friday, 15 Dec 2000 10:19:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

I imagine without intending to do so, Eric I. Salehi blames me for ideas
I did not put forward.  I agree with Richard Burt's statement,

> scholarly credentials do not necessarily produce good criticism,
> nor does their lack necessarily produce bad criticism.

I did not write that informed opinions only came from those holding an
academic position or even a Ph.D., nor do I believe that.  I'm not sure
why Mr. Salehi believes that I do.  Several list members who I count
amongst my e-friends lack these credentials, yet when they venture an
opinion it is unvariably learned and sometimes even wise.  Like myself,
when they don't know what they are talking about, they refrain.  Smart
people know when to speak and when to listen.  They are smart people.

Your opinion regarding Taymor's Titus is obviously informed, and
therefore worthwhile.  While I disagree with much of it, your reasons
are understandable.  Let me address a couple of them.

> My greatest objection is that
> Taymor's film seemed to me to be largely derivative, both of Fellini, as
> several list members pointed out, and of Deborah Warner's stunning 1987
> production at the RSC.

If you read Alan Dessen's excellent book on this play in the Shakespeare
in Performance series you will find that Taymor's film has many things
in common not only with Warner's production, but a few others as well.
I would not go so far as to call the film derivative unless I knew
Taymor or her actors had seen these productions.  Perhaps you do know
this?  I don't, so I would not make a statement any stronger than they
found similar ways to solve production problems.  If you dislike it
because parts of the film were familiar to you, be my guest.

I suggest that Titus is not a bad movie just because you have seen these
things before.  I did not see Warner's production, so I was not
bothered.  I thought the elements you mentioned worked cinematically,
which was all that concerned me.

> Taymor's costumes (some of which looked like
> they came straight out of _8 1/2_) and scenery (a la _Satyricon_) came
> across as eye candy, and proved a distraction from performances which
> were, after all, superficial.

I doubt we shall agree on this, but that's all right:  I found the
performances of a piece with the sets and costumes in the court scenes.
I know what superficial means, but I'm not sure what you mean by it
above.  If I read the text right, the characterizations are a bit
superficial anyway, so the actors only had so much to work with.  Given
the dangerous, angry, a-blink-away-from-violence attitude of these
characters, the characterizations made good sense to me in Taymor's
environment.  The same goes for the very different, austere environment
of Titus' house and the environs of his extended family.  One of the
things I admire about Taymor's conception is how well she contrasted the
two families visually.  I probably think that the Titus side resonated
better with the play than the other, but I believe she was on the right
track, and for me it was an effective way to visualize this for a movie.

It also doesn't bother me that the look reminds some of Fellini.  The
Production Designer was Dante Ferretti who worked with Fellini on four
films, so there's your real culprit.  See the value of an informed
opinion?  You can blame Taymor for choosing Ferretti, but then you have
to blame Pasolini for the same thing, and her film is deliberately more
in the tradition of Fellini and Pasolini than of Olivier and Branagh.

Anyway, visual shortcuts are OK, as long as they reveal character and
create a world for the story to live in.  This strikes me as similar to
criticizing a period film for using the music of an era to instantly
convey to the audience the feel of that time and place.  I actually have
a friend who does criticize film makers for this.  He thinks it is too
easy, and that film makers should work harder to achieve the same end.
Well, OK, but it works for many in the audience, so film makers keep
doing it, and Will just has to deal with that.  Similarly, what you call
the Goth-punk style was an effective visual short cut for me.  I
instantly "got" what kind of a world we were in and what kinds of
characters these were.  My concern, besides the concern mentioned above,
is that the design may make the movie seem very dated in 20 or 50
years.  I suspect Kurosawa's Shakespeares will age better.  You know how
silly 60's mod styles look now?  That may be in Titus future.

>I didn't need to go to graduate school to reach this conclusion.

No, and I'll remind you that I did not say that you must.  The
difference between your opinions and those stated a couple of weeks ago
is that yours were informed.  Debatable, but informed.  Because they
were informed, there was something to debate.  I could respond to them
and show another side.  You made statements I could build upon.  I hope
I have done the same, and you should feel free to build some more.  The
previous statements didn't have enough content to lead to a worthwhile
discussion, and that is part of what I was trying to say.  Thank you for
the opportunity, however unintended, to say it in a different way.

Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Kranz <edkranz@optonline.net>
Date:           Friday, 15 Dec 2000 20:14:26 -0500
Subject: 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2345 Re: Julie Taymor's TITUS

I always "...consider the history and subtitles of an idea or a
performanc," especially if the "subtitles (sic)" are in English.

Ed


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.